What Documents Cannot Do

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Richard Davies
{"title":"What Documents Cannot Do","authors":"Richard Davies","doi":"10.5281/ZENODO.34520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contrary to the key claim of the documental theory that social reality can be explained in terms of the formula “(Social) Object = Inscribed Act”, it is argued that the invocation of objects constitutes an unnecessary detour and that the instances of social reality that the theory takes as paradigmatic are better thought of in terms of other categories. The formula itself leaves unexplained how an inscribed act can produce a social fact of any sort, both because the act of inscription is itself social and because it leaves unclear how to account for the validity or invalidity of such documents. Documental theory fails completely to account for the fact that very many societies do not have the institution of writing that is required for the theory. In appealing to Derrida’s notion of “archiwriting”, Ferraris’ version of documentality abandons the theory’s main strength: that of allowing public verifiability of the documents that provide corroboration for some complex social institutions.","PeriodicalId":37926,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Readings","volume":"6 1","pages":"41-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Readings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.34520","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Contrary to the key claim of the documental theory that social reality can be explained in terms of the formula “(Social) Object = Inscribed Act”, it is argued that the invocation of objects constitutes an unnecessary detour and that the instances of social reality that the theory takes as paradigmatic are better thought of in terms of other categories. The formula itself leaves unexplained how an inscribed act can produce a social fact of any sort, both because the act of inscription is itself social and because it leaves unclear how to account for the validity or invalidity of such documents. Documental theory fails completely to account for the fact that very many societies do not have the institution of writing that is required for the theory. In appealing to Derrida’s notion of “archiwriting”, Ferraris’ version of documentality abandons the theory’s main strength: that of allowing public verifiability of the documents that provide corroboration for some complex social institutions.
文件不能做什么
文献理论认为,社会现实可以用“(社会)对象=铭文行为”的公式来解释。与此相反,文献理论认为,对对象的调用构成了不必要的迂回,而该理论认为作为范例的社会现实实例最好用其他类别来考虑。这个公式本身没有解释一个铭刻的行为如何产生任何形式的社会事实,因为铭刻的行为本身就是社会的,也因为它没有解释清楚如何解释这些文件的有效性或无效性。文献理论完全不能解释这样一个事实,即许多社会没有理论所需要的写作制度。在诉诸德里达的“档案写作”概念时,法拉利版本的文献性抛弃了该理论的主要优势:允许公众可验证的文件,为一些复杂的社会制度提供佐证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Philosophical Readings
Philosophical Readings Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Philosophical Readings, a four-monthly journal, ISSN 2036-4989, features articles, discussions, translations, reviews, and bibliographical information on all philosophical disciplines. Philosophical Readings is a Open Access journal devoted to the promotion of competent and definitive contributions to philosophical knowledge. Not associated with any school or group, not the organ of any association or institution, it is interested in persistent and resolute inquiries into root questions, regardless of the writer’s affiliation. The journal welcomes also works that fall into various disciplines: religion, history, literature, law, political science, computer scnfoience, economics, and empirical sciences that deal with philosophical problems. Philosophical Readings uses a policy of blind review by at least two consultants to evaluate articles accepted for serious consideration. Philosophical Readings promotes special issues on particular topics of special relevance in the philosophical debates. Philosophical Readings occasionally has opportunities for Guest Editors for special issues of the journal. Anyone who has an idea for a special issue and would like that idea to be considered, should contact the Executive editor. Philosophical Readings publishes at least 9 original researches in a calendar year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信